Re: [Teas] Status update on <draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control>

We have already discussed "lively" the speculative statements in certain sections of this document.

To me, examples such as section 3.1.4 (and others) ...

   It may be the case that additional technology-
   specific parameters are needed to configure the NEs and these
   parameters will need to be carried in the PCEP messages

... continue to somehow contradict the expectation in Section 4 that extensions will be generic:

   The only work expected to be needed is small extensions
   to carry additional or specific information elements for the
   individual use cases.  Where possible, consistent with the general
   principles of how protocols are extended, any additions to the
   protocol should be made in a generic way such that they are open to
   use in a range of applications.

Having said this, maybe one could add some thoughts on increased PCEP protocol complexity (e.g., would it possible that the small PCEP extensions would require transaction and rollback support?), impact on running PCEP code, as well as implications on interoperability testing between implementations? This might partly be speculation, but manageability impact doesn't seem entirely unrealistic for some of the use cases considered in the document.

Thanks

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Mittwoch, 22. März 2017 20:19
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; teas@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on <draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control>
> 
> WG,
> 
>     This is the 2nd (or 3rd) time the authors are stating that the document is
> ready to LC  since it was adopted ~6months ago - without there being any
> substantive discussion on the document within the WG and only a minor
> update in December.  It's a little hard for us (chairs) to know if silence is due
> to complete agreement with the document or simply apathy.  From the
> message below, the authors clearly think it's the former.  If you are *not* an
> author of this document and are willing to share your opinion on this
> document, please do so -- preferably on the list, but unicast to the chairs is
> also acceptable.  We will also ask for feedback on the draft during the status
> portion of the meeting.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Lou (and Pavan)
> 
> 
> On 3/22/2017 8:01 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As requested, here is the status of this I-D.
> >
> > - Not on the agenda in Chicago
> >
> > - New revision posted in December
> >    - Fixed nits after re-review by several authors
> >
> > - The authors have repeatedly pointed out to the chairs that the
> >    document is complete and ready to move forward.
> >    - At this stage, the chairs are blocking progress
> >
> > - Related work...
> >    - Use cases document has been adopted in TEAS
> >       draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > Teas@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas